Share this:

Count KSTP’s Stanley Hubbard on the “nay” side in a look at how billionaires view Hillary Clinton’s proposal to limit secret, big-money campaign contributions.

The Hill described her idea as a plan to “change laws to restrict the influence of secret, unaccountable money in presidential and congressional campaigns.”

It would require “more timely and complete disclosure of individual and corporate donations, introducing a publicly financed “donor-matching” system to encourage less wealthy people to make smaller donations and overturning the Supreme Court’s controversial 2010 Citizens United decision, which set the stage for unlimited money in U.S. elections.”

The Hill found some billionaires in favor, including Hollywood producer Jeffrey Katzenberg and billionaire California investor Marc Nathanson.

But not Hubbard, a big donor to Scott Walker’s campaign. Hubbard told The Hill that he was “incensed” by her proposal and that she “obviously doesn’t believe in free speech unless it’s her free speech.”

Hubbard, described as a “Minnesota broadcasting billionaire,” said:

“We live in a country where you can talk on the phone, send emails and spend your money on free speech. Any attempt to hinder free speech, I will do whatever I can” to fight against it.

And, according to the Hill, Hubbard said Clinton’s public financing proposal would force taxpayers to spend money they didn’t want to spend on political campaigns.

Comments (10)

Here’s an idea: Let’s start with an audit of the Clinton Foundation by an independent accounting firm to determine the source of the hundreds of millions of dollars that are available for her campaign.

“Let’s start with an audit of the Clinton Foundation by a partisan accounting firm determined to find the smoking gun that we’ve been unable to find in every other faux scandal that we’ve concocted in our imaginations.”

This has nothing to do with “free speech”. This is simply Mr. Hubbard complaining that he doesn’t believe people have a right to know who is trying to buy candidates. It is grotesque that people can donate substantial sums of money to candidates for political office in secret. If one wants secrecy, you can donate less than $100 and remain anonymous. Mr. Hubbard donates to candidates in exchange for their willingness to support or oppose actions by the FCC as dictated by Mr. Hubbard. Fair enough, that is what the system tolerates. But in no universe should his donations be scrubbed from public view.

Is that writing a check is “speech” of some kind. One day American’s will look back on that fiasco and see it for the stupidity is obviously represents. Few ideas have done so much damage and curtailed democracy as this.

It wasn’t that long ago I read a contribution to the Koch employee newsletter from Stan Hubbard, saying how glad he’d be to help Koch support their chosen candidates (for a price, I’m sure). It was also his station that aired Limbaugh & blow hard Jason Lewis for what was far too long. What a waste of radio waves. So glad to have the internet and alternatives to his pathetic broadcasting empire.